dlew
V4L
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 676
- Likes
- 1
And again, I'm not anti-CCM. I just prefer Pearls defensive gameplan. The full-court, up and down defense that he used his first three years. I prefer it and think if is more effective than the style Martin employs. I don't have to use his seven games at UT to make this determination. It's the same style defense he used for three years at MSU as well. You can look at the stats and defensive rankings from his time there and determine that his teams are not going to be known for their aggressive defense. He was middle of the road in a mid-major conference for three years. That doesn't make him a bad coach. I just prefer a different approach, and Pearl employed that approach.
You can laud or criticize all you want. However, I don't think that lauding or criticizing him requires constant comparison to Bruce Pearl.
Constant comparison? A bit of an exaggeration. I used one comparison and it fits in this discussion. I prefer Pearls defensive gameplan to Martins. I could have said Pitino or Nolan Richardson as examples. Maybe should have to keep the Pearl-hatred at bay.
Constant comparison? A bit of an exaggeration. I used one comparison and it fits in this discussion. I prefer Pearls defensive gameplan to Martins. I could have said Pitino or Nolan Richardson as examples. Maybe should have to keep the Pearl-hatred at bay.
That's fine. However, defense that is predicated on turnovers rarely wins championships. It's those teams that can lock you down in the halfcourt that do.
What defensive gameplan you prefer is not relevant to where Jarnell Stokes goes to school. Thus, no, it's not relevant. And, it's stupid. You didn't prove a point other than to just say, "hey, I like Bruce's defense." Guess what? No one cares.
Again, why be a jerk? You post constant drivel with your opinion, and its ok. Why can't I?
I couldn't care less if you post something on your opinion. You're simply wrecking a thread that shockingly people are looking in to see where Jarnell Stokes may want to go to school rather than seeing your opinion on defensive philosophy. If this means so much to you, start a thread on it, and quit hijacking this one.
That's fine. It was an attempt to hijack the thread, it was simply a discussion that evolved from a statement that someone else started regarding coaching philosophies, so actually you can jump on whomever made the original remark. You have contributed to the discussion going on 5 pages now, so what bothers you more, the inadvertent hijacking, or the fact that you disagree with my thought? You have argued both. I just don't see why you have to be such a dick to people when you disagree with them. There doesn't seem to be a civil bone in your body. I'll expect a smart ass remark back from you, because that is seems to be your M.O. I just don't understand why you think it further drives home your point to belittle people over cyberspace. I wish you could read the way you communicate with people from an outside perspective. I would hope you would be embarrassed. There are several others that this description would fit as well, but you particularly, are a serial offender.
That's fine. It was an attempt to hijack the thread, it was simply a discussion that evolved from a statement that someone else started regarding coaching philosophies, so actually you can jump on whomever made the original remark. You have contributed to the discussion going on 5 pages now, so what bothers you more, the inadvertent hijacking, or the fact that you disagree with my thought? You have argued both. I just don't see why you have to be such a dick to people when you disagree with them. There doesn't seem to be a civil bone in your body. I'll expect a smart ass remark back from you, because that is seems to be your M.O. I just don't understand why you think it further drives home your point to belittle people over cyberspace. I wish you could read the way you communicate with people from an outside perspective. I would hope you would be embarrassed. There are several others that this description would fit as well, but you particularly, are a serial offender.
That's fine. It was an attempt to hijack the thread, it was simply a discussion that evolved from a statement that someone else started regarding coaching philosophies, so actually you can jump on whomever made the original remark. You have contributed to the discussion going on 5 pages now, so what bothers you more, the inadvertent hijacking, or the fact that you disagree with my thought? You have argued both. I just don't see why you have to be such a dick to people when you disagree with them. There doesn't seem to be a civil bone in your body. I'll expect a smart ass remark back from you, because that is seems to be your M.O. I just don't understand why you think it further drives home your point to belittle people over cyberspace. I wish you could read the way you communicate with people from an outside perspective. I would hope you would be embarrassed. There are several others that this description would fit as well, but you particularly, are a serial offender.
Lawvol is untouchable. He is never wrong. Way to go Lawvol, the bamf behind the keyboard always waiting to persecute somebody or call them out. Your soooooo scary, no one wants to mess with Lawvol. He is way smarter than all of the rest of the morons on VN. If your such a bamf, why aren't you a moderator? Noob, you have no power.
Without turning this into a Pearl vs Martin saga, Pearl's defensive philosophy and coaching ability was light years better than what Martin has shown so far. I will agree that Martin's motion offense looks much more fluid than what Pearl was running.
Keywords : so far.Without turning this into a Pearl vs Martin saga, Pearl's defensive philosophy and coaching ability was light years better than what Martin has shown so far. I will agree that Martin's motion offense looks much more fluid than what Pearl was running.